Tone wars 31 Oct 2010 There are a group of critics of religion, of pseudoscience, of regressive politics – all excellent targets for criticism – who think that if you in any way seek polite, civil or reasoned discourse with the targets of your criticisms, you are weak and accommodationist. I call these “tone warriors” and if I had the skills of a cartoonist I would do a funny caricature. Instead, Mike Reed’s Flame Warriors will have to do: It was a peaceful and productive forum; lively, congenial and a bounteous source of useful information. Then one day, completely without warning, Godzilla arose from the depths and blew his scalding breath on everything in his path. A phalanx of Warriors mobilized to attack the monster, only to be crushed like so many toy tanks under Godzilla’s mighty feet. Godzilla soon reduced the forum to searing and consuming flames. Just as abruptly, he rumbled back beneath the waves, leaving all to tremble in fear of his return. Net life would never be the same. Sadly, many netizens who survive a Godzilla attack will become Xenophobes. [Mike’s caption] Of course this immediately calls for a caricature of those who think concern for tone need not interfere with substantial criticism: Diplomat butts into hot disputes, presuming that the combatants will welcome and appreciate his even-handed and eminently reasonable mediation. Frankly, he gets what he deserves. [Mike’s caption] And perhaps we do. But it seems to me that style (tone) and substance (reason) are not necessarily inversely related, except in Powerpoint presentations. The way we communicate to others has an effect upon the overall debate. Why am I raising this old potato to hot status now (especially as I once said I wouldn’t – you expected consistency?)? Well, it has to do with the way some have responded to the Jon Stewart rally. Stewart, you may have seen, noted that “we can have animus and not be enemies” and “If we amplify everything we hear nothing”. Sensible stuff, and a needed antidote to the hysterical media and pundits. But PZ Myers (yes, it’s an insult: I spelled his name correctly!) tweeted “The #rally4sanity was amusing, but it should have been called the #rally4tone. Unimpressed. Done and over.” and then posted The Rally for Tone at Pharyngula in which he said, “It was also an afternoon of false equivalence, of civility fetishism, of nothing but a cry about the national tone, of a plea for moderation. And you can guess what I think of moderation.” If anyone has ever read Paul’s blog, then yes, we can guess… This of course got me thinking. Why is it hysteria when the pundits and Murdoch Minions do it, but not when we do it? Tone warriors will not ask this question, or permit it to be asked; instead we are told “you are being vague and lack examples”. Well, yes, that’s the point. If we give personal examples, then we have (a) ceased to be civil, and (b) get diverted into an exegesis of “whether or not that person said this in the way interpreted, and anyway, what about what they said in a blog post on December 12 last year, and what about the people with whom you are trying to reason? They said bad things too” and so on. It’s the principle, not the person, that we are trying to discuss. Now it may be that in fact tone is rarely so negative among the skeptical community that this doesn’t in fact need to be said. If so, why is it an issue? Perhaps the religious/antiscience/regressivists are just complaining that people don’t agree with them and mistaking that for tone. This certainly does happen. It seems to me that the standard Catholic line is to treat any objection to their particularism or doctrine as a personal attack upon the Pope, and to claim that warranted personal attacks on church leaders who defended pedophiles is an ad hominem fallacy against Catholicism. Similar comments can be made against other target groups’ responses (such as antivaxxers or Scientology). But this doesn’t match all my experience of these people. Most of those who have swallowed this or that pseudoscience or pseudomedicine are just ordinary folk, who lack the time, education or even (and this isn’t I think something to criticise everyone for) the interest to find out. And many of those who are religious, again in my experience, are not particularists or exclusivists or exceptionalists who want a theocracy and to tell everyone what to believe and how to live. In fact (and this may be a result of growing up in Australia, with it’s English-sourced Anglicanism – cosmic purpose in a cup of tea), most don’t. The increasing tendency of religious organisations to try to take over the public arena in Australia seems, more than anything else, to be derived from America, and a direct result of the resulting tone wars on both sides. Back when I had religion [religions plural, really; I tried ’em all like a good consumer] evangelicalism was a rather quiet and personal thing. It was a belief one held and offered to others, and if they didn’t accept it, one nodded politely on the understanding that their destiny was their own business. Then, we had the American style of tone come in, and suddenly we tried to impose our ideas on schools, on politics and other churches and religions. It took only a few years to shift, and then the older, moderate, style was seen as old fashioned. It was a period of tonal shifts, the 1970s. Feminism, left wing politics, and free thinking were suddenly aggressive, and were shortly followed by equally aggressive conservatism, patriarchalism and conformism. Our conservative politicians went from defending individual freedoms to imposing social values in the name of “law and order”, another American import. But I am old fashioned. I yearn for the ideal of a society where one is not only free to believe something others do not, but one is defended by those who do not agree. I yearn for the Millian idea that the best path to truth is not assertion, but reasoned discussion. I like to think, whether I am basing this on vain hope or evidence I cannot say, that one can convince another person rather than browbeat them. The feminists who convinced me were not the ones who shouted in my face, and there were a few, that all men are rapists. They were the ones who showed me (and continue to do so, I hope) that my male privileges made me blind to the lack of them that women have. The aggressive ones, who I do defend their right to be, merely decreased my acceptance of their view, not increased it. It boils down to whether one wants to be right or effective. Ideally we would be both, but we are all in a state of relative ignorance, and so we can only be convinced of our rightness. As Cromwell said to the Scots Parliament: “I beseech ye, in the bowels of Christ, bethink ye may be mistaken” (substituting your favourite holiness as required; I prefer “in the bowels of Russell” myself). And if you may be mistaken, you may be convinced otherwise yourself. Reasoned discussion is, in my opinion, the best and most truth-tracking way to become convinced of something. Anger has its place, of course. But as a general strategy, it is no better at tracking truth than any other arbitrary method. Of course, tone warriors think they are right. So do the religious, the antiscience types and the regressive politicians. They too get angry and aggressive. Anger is not a sufficient guarantee that truth is being arrived at. Otherwise we are all just pundits, interviewing each other. I have often said that the so-called “angry” atheists have plenty to be angry about, and anyone who attempts to limit their rights to get pissed at how they, a minority, have been treated is curtailing reason. But, and this is purely a matter of strategy, if your aim is to be right, then anger is a fine strategy. If your aim is to convince others, it really isn’t. Those who, in the evolution/creation battle for example, wish science to be taught in schools would do well to bring the religious along with them. Those who want religion to be crushed under their feet and a scorched earth left will not desire that. I think Stewart has raised the bar on civility: it is a way of reducing the polarisation that poisons much public debate, particularly but now not exclusively in north America. But if you are a tone warrior, then you don’t want to do that. You want to win. And good luck with that. But I do see that when revolutionary wars are fought, they usually end up eating their own young afterwards. And I am now, of course, on the dinner plate. Politics Rant Sermon
Evolution What sorts of people 14 May 2008 In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Act V scene 1, Miranda says O, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in’t! The third line gave Aldous Huxley the title of his future dystopia, Brave New World. Somewhere between Miranda’s… Read More
Logic and philosophy Physicists on science 25 Nov 2007 I have a rule (Wilkins’ Law #35, I think) that if any scientist is going to draw unwarranted metaphysical conclusions, it will be a physicist, and in particular a cosmologist. Witness Paul Davies in the New York Times. Davies wants to argue something like this: Read More
Politics Thank the fates! The RQF is dead 21 Dec 2007 The previous Australian government, in its ongoing quest to out-mediocre the rest of the world, had instituted a “research Quality Framework”, liberally taken from a failed exercise in Britain. Now, the new government has declared it dead. It will not be missed. Read More
If your aim is to convince others, it really isn’t. This may be right only if you are trying to convince somebody who already disagrees. If on the other hand, you are trying to convince someone who is equivocal or unengaged, it may indeed be a very effective tactic.
I think politics in America is over — you know, like history is over. From now on out it’s just one big food fight.
History, and politics, has always been like that, except for a period where we thought democratic engagement might work. Unfortunately those who objected to that stepped in before it had a chance to take, and it’s been on the back foot ever since.
Civility is fine. What you’ve omitted, and what the so-called “tone warriors” object to, is the weird passive-aggressive inversion of the tone argument. I’m not telling everyone else that they must be as obnoxious as I am or they will be condemned and thrown off of my team; in fact, you’ll usually find me arguing that we need diverse strategies to do that winning thing you mentioned. The other side is not so appreciative. The usual line we get is you’re-not-helping, you’re-harming-the-cause, STFU. “Civility” is the blunt instrument the wimps swing about to try (ineffectively) to silence anyone insufficiently deferential to the status quo. I detest tone arguments because those favoring them have one goal: shutting down views that make them uncomfortable. It’s really a bad idea, though, to try and suppress the more aggressive members of your team, because they’re also the ones most willing to turn about and bite. I didn’t think the weird rally was a bad thing. I thought bits were entertaining, while others were very awkward, and I thought Stewart’s closing speech was a sad and desperate reach to retroactively make the whole day relevant. But I have no objection to civility, except when it’s made into a fetish given priority over substance. And in this case, unfortunately, I think it was. As I said over on my wicked and militantly rude site, he could have had a rally in which he plainly promoted positive, progressive values using these strange and foreign tactics of civil discourse and rational argument (I know! I never do these things, so I could use the guidance), and he would have set a sterling example, and I would have applauded. I would have had something to applaud, anyway. But he didn’t. My argument is never that you must be uncivil. It’s always that you’d better have some cause worth advancing beyond the posturing of manners.
And ironically, the response from the tone warrior to my tweet “style and substance are not inversely related” in response to you, I got “@pzmyers @john_s_wilkins STFU “Making the perfect the enemy of the good.” Have you gomers ever heard that phrase before? Jebus.” from J D. Fisher @sineof1. I keep hearing that we are telling you lot to STFU, but I don’t really see anyone saying that to you. Not even Josh Rosenau, whose responses have been, so far as I can see, quite, err, moderate. On the other hand, when Massimo Pigliucci suggests that Jerry Coyne is not quite the philosopher that he thinks he is, he gets told to STFU, and when Josh makes his measured critiques, he gets told to STFU, and now I have. If you can’t see that tone is a problem, well, I’m never going to convince you. But those of us who are told by our erstwhile allies to STFU are less than impressed by the plaint against tone. And that “posturing of manners” thing? If that isn’t a strawman, then nothing is. I do not think anyone has said in this debate that its just about manners. Not even your favourite target, Chris Mooney.
But you just quoted someone telling me to STFU! Oh, and Josh doesn’t make measured critiques. He makes stupid critiques. And no, I don’t tell him to STFU. The usual way we’re told to STFU is indirect and very, very polite: we’re told our outspokenness is harming the cause and driving away people who might otherwise be on our side. There’s also my favorite: “you care more about hating religion than improving science education,” that inane attempt to drive a wedge between our goals. My point about the posturing of manners was directed not at you, but at the rally. They were so darned determined to remain completely politically neutral that they cut out everything other than exhortations to be nice.
“But you just quoted someone telling me to STFU! ” But the guy telling both you and our host to STFU wasn’t part of the civility brigade, not part of the “we” that Wilkins mentioned when he said, “I keep hearing that we are telling you lot to STFU, but I don’t really see anyone saying that to you.” Rather, that guy is an Internet tough guy writing stuff like “I’ve got more atheist balls in my f–king sock drawer than PZ Myers has in his entire old leftist body. “
Coincidentally, I was just reading The Rally for Tone thread on Pharyngula. What struck me was how a poster called yanshen71786 was being told repeatedly to STFU, threatened with “plonking” and told to “bugger off”. Apparently, what caused offense was an opinion about inequitable wealth distribution which the Pharyngulistas found distasteful. Now both sides were fully entitled to express the views they did in the language they did. Yanshen came off the better if only because he or she maintained a moderate and civil tone throughout the exchange. But anyone who complains about being told to STFU while indulging in that sort of attitude and tolerating it in supporters should be told, in the memorable words of gubernatorial candidate Frank Caprio, to “shove it”.
And speaking of Pharyngula commenters, there was one, Marco in comment #32, who asked sarcastically, “Was MLK’s Riverside Church speech ‘moderate’?” So I went and looked up the transcript of the speech and saw stuff like this: This speech is not … an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. and this: Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition. Acknowledging the complexities of a tough situation? Trying to be compassionate and see things from the enemy’s perspective. Um, yes, that is the sort of moderation that Jon Stewart seemed to be talking about. So, ironically, the answer to the Pharyngula commenter’s question is “yes.” It’s odd how the “tone warriors” cite MLK as a positive example while failing to see that he deliberately avoided behaving like a mouth-frothing raving dog.
Amusing how we now know (as many of us new then) that the US was not acting in good faith in Vietnam, nor was there any “ambiguity of the total situation,” and that the war was not in fact resolved by “trustful give and take on both sides.” Of course, there are real issues with taking the conciliatory parts of the speech at face value, too, given their context of King’s reasonably thorough rejection of US policy in SE Asia in the bulk of the speech. But even if your face value interpretation of them is correct, we can comfortably say that King was simply wrong to that extent. It is also a fact that King, as he is presented in the American public discourse today, has been thoroughly sanitised, and was in real life much more of a radical than the kiddies are thought to believe. That does not imply, though, that he ought to be the radical’s primary role model. It’s easy to agree that he oughtn’t.
JP, you are right that the situation in Vietnam did not end up being decided by “trustful give and take on both sides,” because the North Vietnamese eventually took over the whole of Vietnam by force after the U.S. withdrew. However, saying that there was no ambiguity in the situation in Vietnam is ridiculous. Furthermore, this statement is half-true: It is also a fact that King, as he is presented in the American public discourse today, has been thoroughly sanitised, and was in real life much more of a radical than the kiddies are thought to believe. True, Martin Luther King was regarded as a radical in his own time by many, but as was “stupidly” pointed out by Josh Rosenau, he sought to (gasp!) build bridges with whites, a move that was criticized by someone who is still regarded as a radical to this day, namely Malcolm X. Furthermore, MLK made a point of avoiding the “bitterness and hatred” of those like Malcolm X. This is grossly overlooked by the civility-bashing “tone warriors” who cite MLK as a role model.
I agree with the general principle, but wonder whether you are misapplying it. Personally, I am a non-confrontational type, though I’ll admit that I have occasionally been a bit confrontational (though not on religion). PZ, by nature, is a lot more confrontational than I. I seem to remember him be confrontational on usenet (talk origins) 15 years ago. Much of what PZ posts is appropriate, given his style. I do think he is occasionally excessive. I’m inclined to say that Jerry Coyne is occasionally excessive. It’s human nature to go overboard once in a while. By contrast, people like Glen Beck and many of the religious apologists appear to have adopted a deliberate strategy of being excessive most of the time. I, too, remember a time when evangelical Christianity was calmer. I think it was at around the time that Ronald Reagan was elected president, that they made a strategy decision to be far more political and far more confrontational. Their decision to be confrontation on creationism vs. evolutionism was perhaps 30 years earlier than that. The more troubling change, I suggest, is elsewhere. We used to have a reasonably balanced news reporting, and our news media used to give reasonably balanced news analysis from time to time. I think the programs were “CBS Reports” and “NBC White Paper” on a couple of US networks. Those days are gone. The media have folded news into entertainment, and most people have stopped following balanced news anyway. We are unlikely to ever return to the kind of public dialog that was more common 30 years ago. We have to do our best to deal with the way the world is today.
I don’t blame Stewart for not taking a political position in this rally, or for not having some kind of agenda or vision.I think in the tactical context of that rally it was the right thing to do, to get as many people as possible to listen.However, that’s why the whole thing seems futile to me though, not only to have a rally to just ask to be nice without an actual message, but also because Fox et al are not after a fair and balanced media coverage in the first place. But the same does not apply to our speaking out against religious privilege IMO, what you have there is people in position of power, influence and tax exemption, and they don’t want to lose these.So atheists pointing this out will always be labelled strident, militant and attacking religious freedom, and that’s exactly why we should keep doing it.If we accomodate, we achieve nothing.
“But it seems to me that style (tone) and substance (reason) are not necessarily inversely related, except in Powerpoint presentations. The way we communicate to others has an effect upon the overall debate. ” No one argues tone doesn’t matter, nor that content/accuracy is necessarily sacrificed when altering one’s words to be less offensive (it is only sometimes a casualty, though this is important to realize). The argument is that tone *does* matter, and it is often advantageous to make people uncomfortable, as this is how most people deconverted from belief in Santa Clause. Other emotions are sometimes desirable results as well, so a wide variety of advocacy is advantageous depending on the time and place. Note the use of pride parades by gays and how that mainstreamed the idea of their existence. In addition, different people react to different stimuli differently, even in the same time and place. For this reason, different forms of advocacy are valid and having a diverse voice is optimal. The most offensive atheist advocates consistently encourage others to adopt other approaches. What is invalid is criticizing other advocates merely because they make some people uncomfortable. Doing so wholly misses the points that a) it may be good for them to be uncomfortable, and b) that even if it is bad making that subset of people uncomfortable, that may be a necessary harm done pursuing a larger goal, such as ensuring that atheists everywhere know they are not alone or making a different subset of people uncomfortable (when those others should be made to feel that way). Critics of offensive advocacy insufficiently demonstrate that they grasp these points, as you failed to in the section of yours I quoted. Their critiques shallowly argue that a specific tone of advocacy is unhelpful (when they *are* specific) by simply noting that offense was committed without attempting to show that more harm than good was done thereby. They simply fail to recognize the good done and assume none was done by the assertiveness they criticize. By similar reasoning I could argue that all cases of chefs putting salt in a batch of food is bad. While food can be oversalted, whether a particular dish has too much salt depends on specifics of the ingredients, cooking, side dishes, etc. Also, while some people might be thereby turned off to the food, others will enjoy it more. Any criticism of the amount of salt in a dish should demonstrate awareness that putting salt in food sometimes makes it taste better than saltless food for most people. Critiques that do not give examples of wrongdoing are even more ludicrous. If you gave a talk entitled “Don’t be a food over-salter” without either mentioning a single dish or recognizing that salt has a place in cooking, you would be a ridiculous person. This is because it is trivially true that any dish can have too much salt; to have content your talk would need to discuss how to balance advantages and disadvantages of salting and recognize that no one actually advocates making every meal 50% salt by weight. “It boils down to whether one wants to be right or effective.” You fail to be an effective advocate for your position by assuming what you should be trying to prove. Bear in mind that no one says there is no place for civility. The debate is between those like you who say there is no place for angry speech and those like P.Z. who say there is a place for a spectrum of speech.
Except that I say, in several places both in this post and the comments and elsewhere, that there is a place for angry speech. And no matter how many times I say it, some tone warriors seem to ignore this.
Just as the so-called tone warriors say that there is a place for civil discourse which you also seem to ignore. Civil discourse is good, but how does one have a civil discourse with people who don’t blink an eye when Bush suspended habeus corpus, but yell that the Democrats are trying to take away their freedoms with no examples whatsoever? Perhaps things are better in Australia than they are here.
Speaking of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, I feel Myers may be missing the point. The actual content of the performances wasn’t especially relevant, the message was conveyed by the event itself. The left isn’t the source of the insanity or the fear in America this season, and this was well understood by all involved. It would be silly to criticize Stephen Colbert for the illiberal sentiments he spouts in his role (although my mother, a liberal with Alzheimer’s, initially disliked his show). Jon Stewart’s sentiments are similarly not difficult to discern, even though he never states them directly. It’s relevant that Obama usurped Wednesday’s show; he understands that audience perfectly well.
The blessed silvery one says:Anger is not a sufficient guarantee that truth is being arrived at. Otherwise we are all just pundits, interviewing each other. Yes, but what are bloggers and commentators actually trying to achieve? A lot of it is about feeling part of a group, so the pharyngulistas all bleat “we’re so great! everybody else STFU!” as they follow their master wherever he leads them, picking up and repeating his better lines. They’re not debating, they’re not trying to convince anyone, they’re just enjoying being part of an online gang. And the same is probably true here; people joining in because they like what you say and want to be part of your gang too. And with Jon Stewart; people identifying with a group. Unfortunately it’s more difficult to identify with a group which advocates tolerance and civility than intellectual versions of Teddy Boys. It’s not about philosophy, it’s not about religion, it’s not about communication, it’s sociology. And no, I’m not a sociologist trying to sell you my field, never done any in my life!
Exactly. Being part of an online gang is a fine goal separate from convincing the unpersuaded, and it is silly to judge the methods of arguing there by those used to persuade. Similarly, it is silly to judge methods of persuasion by those used to dispassionately weigh the truth of things. More firmly establishing the intellectual bases of your position in the mind of someone who only disagrees with it for emotional reasons is not always the best approach. Tone trolls should stop assuming a) that the role of (offensive) argument is always to persuade and b) that inoffensive argument is always the best way to persuade.
“evangelicalism was a rather quiet and personal thing” In some parts of the world still is. My secondary supervisor was an evangelical christian who spent his free time translating the bible into Gaelic. He was strongly in favour and highly supportive of my research which had a clear evolutionary aspect. My main supervisor hated and could not understand what I was doing. His tone was somewhat diffrent. All he could do was shout and go red in the face, he could not present an effective argument; but it gets to a point when it becomes unproductive to even point out the clear mistakes made as it only makes matters worse Its not an effective way to debate. It is a very effective way to win if you are in a position of authority.
A call for civility is not a call for moving politics to the center or a desire to end debate. Could it be that some people are annoyed by people like Stewart because they are afraid they will be ignored or marginalized? Imagine the scene where Mr. or Ms. Imsureimright is pontificating and the listeners, after trying to engage in reasoned discourse, just walk away to talk among themselves.
Religious accommodationism and tone aside, I find it more than a bloody bit rich that a mealy-mouthed millionaire like Jon Stewart is telling people in a country where ten percent of the population hold over eighty percent of the assets that they should focus less on their differences. Your post seriously underestimates (or simply forgets) the extent to which “winning,” as it were, by the working class, in the late 19th and early 20th century is responsible for giving us the sort of society in which contemplating Millian ideas about reasoned discussion is at all possible for the most of us (as opposed to, say, the society in which Mill lived). If Stewart-style civility in the face of reactionary forces is a restoration of sanity, I’d rather stay in the madhouse.
Stewart has frequently acknowledged that he is well paid and lucky to be so. Are you suggesting that only poor people, or perhaps the poor and middle class are somehow endowed with special powers of reasonableness? Who gets to be in your group and who decides? Are you a member of the JPF, the JPPF, the CFG, or the PFJ? The revolution is sure to begin some time soon.
It has very little to do with reasonableness, and very much to do with self-interest. Stewart benefits immensely from the status quo, so he naturally wants working people to be cowed and civil when they really ought to be on the barricades – and I’m sure he’s quite sincere and thinks himself well-meaning, too. But if you have any doubts about which side he’s really on, just look at his comments condemning the recent strikes in Europe. That the unctuous effusions of a Stewart and an Obama are what gets young people excited today is simply sad.
There are a group of critics of religion, of pseudoscience, of regressive politics – all excellent targets for criticism – who think that if you in any way seek polite, civil or reasoned discourse with the targets of your criticisms, you are weak and accommodationist. For the record, I am not one of those people—I don’t criticize those who prefer a “softer” tone just because they adopt that approach. On the other hand, people who advocate a “softer” tone tend to have very strong opinions about what constitutes “polite, civil or reasoned discourse” and they don’t hesitate to pass judgment on those of us who don’t conform to their bias. Obviously, if you don’t agree with them you must be guilty of impolite, uncivil and unreasoned discourse. I’m one of the targets, and I take it as an insult. The people of softer tone are free to practice whatever form of discourse they believe will be effective. I don’t think they are “weak” and I don’t ever tell them to start being “rude” and “obnoxious.” I certainly don’t ever suggest that they should stay out of the conversation. They are an essential component of the debate. “Accommodationists” are atheists (or agnostics) who want us to stop attacking religion because it may antagonize moderate believers and prevent them from working with us on causes other than abolishing religion. As a general rule, the accommodationists tend to be the same people who hold strong opinions on what they believe is “polite, civil or reasoned discourse.” I disagree with the accommodationists but not because I think they should adopt my opinion of what will be effective. I disagree with them because they are telling me to alter my goals to conform tho theirs. John says, “It boils down to whether one wants to be right or effective.” He is suggesting that my behavior (and that of PZ and others) is ineffective. That’s a legitimate point of discussion but it’s also a criticism and an insult. It suggests that we are being mean mean and nasty just because we like to be mean and nasty. Either that or we are very stupid not to realize that our behavior is ineffective—and maybe even (gasp!) counter-productive. John, if I could show you that my tone was proving to be effective would you change your mind and stop using words like “aggressive” and “browbeat” to describe me? Would you admit that it’s possible to be right AND effective by speaking the plain truth? P.S. It would help if you’d stop using the terms “reasoned discussion” and “civility” as synonyms for your particular version of behavior. I happen to think that my behavior is also civil and reasonable even though it may be much more direct and confrontational than yours.
“Accommodationists” are atheists (or agnostics) who want us to stop attacking religion because it may antagonize moderate believers and prevent them from working with us on causes other than abolishing religion. “Accommodationist” seems to have more than one meaning. Earlier, you had used the term to describe a passage that began with, “Of course, religious claims that are empirically testable can come into conflict with scientific theories,” a sentence that can already be considered an attack on certain religious beliefs. Depending on who is using the word and under what contexts, it seems to mean anything from allowing that science can be compatible with various religions to a near-synonym for “quisling.”
Defending yourself against an attack, such as Kitzmiller is one thing. Going out of your way to look for a fight is another. If you look for a fight, you will surely find it. Don’t spread too much bad karma around. It does bad things to the world, and to you.
If people are believers, but not anti-science or anti-progressive, do not work against rationality and the only essential difference between them and me is that they have religion, then I just don’t care. I no more have an interest in them becoming atheist then if they wear blue rather than green. If that is accommodation, so be it. How is anyone harmed?
Others are harmed if a religious person advances false and harmful epistemology. If a person defends faith, always believing authority figure X, or randomly guessing as “ways of knowing”, it’s nice that he or she fights for science/equal rights/etc., even on such basis. But if, as they tend to do, such a person advocates faith/tradition/guessing/Jesus/etc., he or she is partly responsible if people do harmful things on identical, baseless grounds. I think even simply saying one suspects that a supernatural intelligence influenced the words of a book (of which we have possession) qualifies, given the world’s situation. An aggressively low place to set the bar, I know ;-).
I don’t want to stop the attack on religion as it will antagonize believers. That is a problem you have any way if you research the subject in the field and is well discussed in anthropology and ethnology. The perspectives and interest of researcher and subject are very different and this often leads to tension. No way round that fact. What I don’t want to see is research on belief jackhammered out of shape to fit in with a particular political perspective. I want to see an argument that is effective and speaks plain truth. I don’t see that; I see a subject that in the sciences is highly politicized with the usual credibility issues that result when debates over politics and identity become to central in academic debate.
Yes, this is an old potato, but clearly it is not a dead potato. This issue of tone seems to me to lend itself to empiricism. We are talking about the effectiveness of various communication methods. For a group of people who so clearly embrace the sciences to continue to have this discussion year in and year out as to what style better convinces the other side or that one style has this or that effect yet only bring anecdotes to support their claims, is ironic and a bit odd, I think. I ask, where are the communication scientists, psychologists, sociologists and other social scientists who study persuasion and communication? Where are the citations of such work in the perennial discussion of this topic?
Blanes, Ruy Llera (2006) The atheist anthropologist: believers and non-believers in anthropological fieldwork. Social anthropology, 14 (2). pp. 223-234 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2006.tb00036.x/abstract
PsyberDave: “Where are the citations of such work in the perennial discussion of this topic?” Blogger Mike McRae has reviewed various studies here: A Ridiculous Essay on Rational Outreach
Medevial teaching methods. disciplina Afficitur plagis qui non vult discere gratis (‘He who does not want to learn freely must be taught with blows’) http://www.marginalia.co.uk/journal/09education/cleaver.php
I think it is also important to place this debate in a historical framework. The role of education and discipline in the understanding of God and Creation is perhaps it’s starting point. It certainly begins debate about educational practise and the role of discipline in European educational institutions from the 12th century.
There seems to be a lot of strawman manufacture on both sides of the debate, misrepresenting the discussion of the other side. Of course, there is also some well-reasoned debate, but it seems to get lost in the chaos of shouting. PZ makes a fair point above – he (and others on that side of the debate) doesn’t demand others act in an obnoxious and confronting manner. He makes a call for diversity, that on the face seems like an appeal to reason. Conversely, those advocating a calmer, less confronting tone are suggesting aggressive choices in media should be reduced. Yet this isn’t about what seems fair, no more than it’s ‘fair’ that intelligent design has equal time in the classroom. Fairness is a red herring. There is a solid claim being made here – greater diversity within communication is better than lesser. Sounds simple, but as anybody who has ever worked in marketing, education, politics, advertising or any other field of public communication well knows, it’s not simple. It’s complicated. Some forms of communication work better than others. Some are antagonistic to others. Goals can conflict. Output is not always synonymous with outcomes. It’s not a simple business where we can appeal to a sense of fairness in the hope of extinguishing critical discussion. There are certainly different goals and different approaches. Nobody has argued otherwise. There is the claim that ridicule, mockery and confrontational language is useful. Indeed, for achieving some outcomes, it certainly is. But for others, there is good reason to think it creates unnecessary problems. The scattergun ‘all approaches’ claim is nothing more than a strained plea to avoid critical discussion, which for skeptics is nothing less than hypocritical. When it comes to goals and communication methods, there needs to be discussion. Criticism is important. An informed, evidence-based approach is vital given the uphill battle we have to change epistemology and promote good thinking skills in a species better suited to social thinking and superstition.
The feminists who convinced me were not the ones who shouted in my face, and there were a few, that all men are rapists. They were the ones who showed me (and continue to do so, I hope) that my male privileges made me blind to the lack of them that women have. The aggressive ones, who I do defend their right to be, merely decreased my acceptance of their view, not increased it. How about the ones that were most aggressive not against you, but made reasonable yet aggressive attacks on the most anti-feminist segments of society? The goal of the aggression is not to convince the aggressees, it’s to convince third parties of the worthlessness of the aggressees’ arguments.
“The goal of the aggression is not to convince the aggressees, it’s to convince third parties of the worthlessness of the aggressees’ arguments.” So it is often claimed. Yet there are a few questions that come from this; Is aggression necessary in achieving equivalent results? Does aggression dissuade third party viewers more or less than it persuades them? Is it merely used to placate the need for the communicator to vent, or is it a legitimate communication tool? In seeking answers to these I’m more often than not told it’s my burden to find answers, and not the claimants to justify their choice. I can find reasons that suggest it’s not as clear-cut as the claimant presumes – http://tribalscientist.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/a-ridiculous-essay-on-rational-outreach/, but am yet to see any non-anecdotal or non-assertive evidence supporting the statement.
“In seeking answers to these I’m more often than not told it’s my burden to find answers…” Since you are telling others to cease acting in accord with their intuition and experience and instead act as you do, the burden of proof is properly on you.
lylebot: How about the ones that were most aggressive not against you, but made reasonable yet aggressive attacks on the most anti-feminist segments of society? Except that the rare feminist who actually does say that all men are rapists is not “reasonable yet aggressive” because she’s not reasonable, but rather is spouting nonsense. In general, while style and substance aren’t necessarily inversely correlated, attempting too hard to be aggressive tends to lead to exaggerating and distorting the picture of one’s adversaries, and third parties who notice when that is happening are not going to be swayed to the aggressors’ side.
They convinced me too. My views were not informed by their interactions with others, but with me. I doubt they convinced those others, but then, I doubt that they had much chance of doing so, and I bet that was their estimate of things as well. Again I say, as I have said several times, anger has its place. I will not try to reason with a mob.
“intelligent design has equal time in the classroom” This is an American problem? It would be unacceptable in the u.k. state education system as it is such a minority view. I suspect the very different roles religion plays in diffrent cultures may explain the different approaches and tones taken. Diversity would appear to be crucial. The particular issues America faces are not universal, although it is often presented as if they are.
“Since you are telling others to cease acting in accord with their intuition and experience and instead act as you do, the burden of proof is properly on you.” This is quite simple – if you claim ridicule works as a method for achieving a goal, state what the goal is and what your evidence is for making that claim. That’s how the burden of proof works. It’s no different to a physician offering a patient homeopathic tablets and asking those who criticise their action to provide proof as to why they shouldn’t. Skeptics would quickly point out that it is up to the claimant to provide proof supporting their decision to act on the premise that homeopathy works. Here, the action is based on the premise that aggressive language is effective in attaining their goal. So…I ask; what is the goal and what is the evidence that the method of communication is successful in achieving it? From what you’re insinuating, the only evidence is ‘experience and intuition’. Yet there is a reason why this is insufficient in explaining all manner of other claims – others have counter intuition and conflicting experience that demonstrates otherwise. Hence we’re back to square one. Only any research into the topic seems to insinuate that claims of using aggressive language is antagonistic to convincing third parties. So, ‘intuition and experience’ is not only insufficient, it isn’t supported when attempts are made to investigate the topic with a little more rigor. Either you’ve got more rigorous reasons to support the claim, or you’re simply so deeply invested in it you’ll use the same fractured reasoning as people of faith do to support their belief in the supernatural. The former I’m happy to continue to discuss.
“This is quite simple – if you claim ridicule works as a method for achieving a goal, state what the goal is and what your evidence is for making that claim. That’s how the burden of proof works.” First of all thank you for saying that rather than assuming that my goal is simply to convince others and arguing from there. This is one of the two pitfalls I critiqued in the original post that people somehow keep repeating. One goal of mine is to ensure nascent atheists know they are not alone, even those isolated in religious communities. The vaguely similar issue of isolated gays being bullied has been in the news recently. I think a visible, confrontational movement with ads such as the “Good without God” run help with that. Glad we got that out of the way. (If you think that doesn’t qualify as being “dickish”, I actually have a bigger beef with the vagueness of the “accommodationist” criticism than it’s target [I think]. I would be much more sympathetic to specific criticism of people doing specific things than I am to “people being dickish, wherein I define dickish as ‘being more assertive than one *should* be'”. So long as I am doing tangents, let me say I disapprove of the whole discourse on both sides revolving around anger in which feeling anger is insufficiently distinguished from acting angrily, as I believe it is ideal to never feel anger but sometimes act as if one is angry. Aside number three: I personally rarely take the aggressive approach. At least, I can’t recall doing so. I think of myself as someone who appreciates the value of a certain type of communication even though I can’t reproduce it. When I was a religious fundamentalist, I similarly only used dialogue but recognized the obvious, tangible results of other forms of persuasion.) Another goal is to convince people of things. In your analogy, the doctor merely has anecdotes of people thinking the placebo worked. After all, nothing was working, they took it, then they felt better. They’re convinced! However, people have little special knowledge as to why they feel as they do. I think that when people write letters to prominent authors in question saying that a book has changed their mind, they do have significant access into why they think as they do (though not total access). So I am willing to credit those. Conversely, though I am also willing to believe people who say an aggressive atheistic experience alienated them from atheism, I’m less worried about that for several reasons. First, as a goal I prefer people falling off the fence given the geopolitical climate of today. I am distressed that having liberal or even moderate religion seems to impede people from imagining what it is like to be a fundamentalist. Second, discussing the pros and cons of message control is fine but I think the benefits are unobtainable outside of a more controlled setting, such as a corporate one. Many of the cons will still be present since religious people will always be able to find examples of aggressive actions or sayings to associate with godless atheists-and if they can’t they will often just distort something or even make something up. So I think we should seek the benefits of diversity since we are stuck with the costs. Third, I see aggressiveness as spectrum rather than a binary thing. If the “don’t be a dick” crowd won its revolutionary war, it would eat its own young afterward. They may agree that P.Z. in particular or even prominent atheists on average are too assertive, but assertiveness is infinitely divisible such that everyone must weigh their situation and message. I think the “diverse speech” targets of the “censoring accommodationists” are bearers of this message. Quite possibly most of the censors are as well, in which case their sins would be both misunderstanding and trying to censor people, rather than merely misunderstanding people (if the diverse speech advocates/dicks are also guilty of that). I’m not clear exactly how deeply your skepticism runs but I believe that humiliation and social costs similar to (though not commensurate with) those faced by those who believe Elvis is still alive were the biggest factors in helping me see through fundamentalist religion. I can’t prove that, and reasoned arguments were essential as well, though no one disputes the value of those. I think special attention should be set on how most people do *not* come into religious beliefs. They don’t get convinced by simply hearing religious proofs. Rather, they are susceptible to non-rational argumentation and impression, in fact I don’t think anyone would dispute that. The facts are in the atheists’ corner, so I certainly value keeping the discussion limited to those for as long as one can. However, once religion starts employing the myriad of other tools that make people act as they do, at a certain point one must engage at that level. One example of engaging at that level is (stay with me here) sometimes *not* debating them. Rather than take every opportunity to debate the facts of evolution, sometimes it is best to avoid setting up a forum in which the sides are presented equally, since that in itself is something that can influence people. I think it’s OK for me to believe that without having read a study showing it. My belief is tentative, of course. It’s how we all go about our day to day lives. Are you arguing that such beliefs are invalid if (since, really) others have different intuitions? Similarly, I think making fun of people can undermine their credibility, etc.
Thanks for the lengthy and well thought out response, Brian. I think we might even have more ground in common than not. I can sympathise with your goal of creating a sense of place for those who feel ostracised for their critical thinking. I think it’s necessary. I agree that ridicule and aggressive language targeting other social groups helps strengthen those bonds, even if I don’t see it as a necessity to do so. So, if that’s the goal, I have no reason to say the use of aggressive language is ineffective. On my definition of ‘dickish’ (and one I think most people seem to share): it is one that is quite obviously based on intention of the communicator, and serves specifically or incidentally to create a degree of mental suffering or at least the impression of creating suffering in members of an audience. As such it is easily defined as any aggressive communication that by choice or for lack of fair consideration creates some form of emotional anguish. There will always be some vague wiggle room, of course, as ‘fair’ will be a matter of debate. But it’s a more confined debate than the broad one that seems to be occurring currently. It also comes down to the intention of the communicator, which is subjective to their admissions and is hard to judge externally. I do disagree with your position on convincing people, however, primarily based on my own experience in science communications and education, but also from what reading I’ve done specifically on the topic in terms of cognitive psychology and sociology. There are those who indeed say an aggressively written piece of text ‘changed their mind’, however there is the question of what role aggressive language specifically played in it, and whether their change of heart is more social than epistemological. In other words, if a position is presented as ‘ridiculous’ and people who hold it will be mocked, the change of view is not epistemological but social. This might not matter, of course, and I know a lot of people who express little care for that detail. So long as they share the same conclusion, who cares, right? Which is where we completely part ways – if a person is encouraged to believe on account of what is presented as ridiculous, to change their mind according to factors of social intimidation or a sense of what is mocked, I see it as a failure regardless of their conclusion. I’m more interested in people who are capable of thinking critically and reasonably, not socially. I have as much to worry about an atheist who is incapable of evaluating what they hear as a person of faith who justifies their belief in an afterlife because they think the alternative is ridiculous. I also don’t share your view of the strict limits of sociological research, primarily because I’ve found it to be more useful in my field than conflicting accounts of intuition. While there are problems with controlling such investigations, it’s far from a dichotomy of absolute proof and falsification. Generalised dismissal of any possible study in such disciplines is presumptive and somewhat ignorant. If I have even small reason to see little use in one form of communication and reason to suspect it might be detrimental, I’d suggest avoiding it, with a caveat of a call for more rigorous evidence. I’m pleased to see that (unlike some of the rebuttals I’ve read) you agree that reasoning played a role in how you came to change your conclusions. In other words, you’d already come to respect a position of evaluative epistemology. Getting people to that point is a struggle (believe me – I’ve spent most of my adult life investigating it), and ridicule is effectively antagonistic to that process. It seems to work at face value on account of something called ‘jeer pressure’, where evaluative skills aren’t used to reach the conclusion so much as a sense of social bias. Now, on something we both agree on – I also advocate non-discussion. Picking battles is vital, and indeed, changing the minds of the faithful is not a matter of simply presenting the facts. I believe in finding ways to promote the thinking process early in life, and facilitating this wherever possible. Unfortunately while many rationalists agree, as a person who works in this particular field of science education, I still often struggle to find resources or assistance when it comes to making this a reality. Rather, there is an overwhelming amount of aggressive dictation aimed at adults who are quite set in their epistemologies – something of a waste of time and effort, in my mind, when there is demonstrable success to be had elsewhere.
“So long as they share the same conclusion, who cares, right? Which is where we completely part ways… I’m more interested in people who are capable of thinking critically and reasonably, not socially. I have as much to worry about an atheist who is incapable of evaluating what they hear as a person of faith who justifies their belief in an afterlife because they think the alternative is ridiculous.” My belief goal for most people is not for them to discard the supernatural but to a) value critical thinking and b) be critical thinkers. People have biases and to greater or lesser extents fall short of b), particularly if they don’t value critical thinking. “…‘jeer pressure’, where evaluative skills aren’t used to reach the conclusion so much as a sense of social bias.” If someone is already subject to jeer pressure on a subject, I don’t see a problem with using an equivalent counterweight. Not doing so leaves them more tainted by jeer pressure than doing so! If someone were perfectly receptive to your/our message, they wouldn’t need to hear it. Rather, the people most in need of it already consume a steady diet of information clothed in just the faintest husk of reality and filled with logical fallacies and direct emotional manipulation. They can best be reached differently, which brings me to my next point. I don’t believe that my deconversion factors are at all universally applicable. I’ve seen a lot of conversions and deconversions and I think different factors are important depending on the individual. This is why I adhere to the diversity voice view without having seen formal scientific studies: I think my anecdotal evidence is enough to show that different things work on different people (at different times in their lives, etc.), so in absence of good evidence it does harm, I promote the idea of a multi-faceted approach. Showing that the diversity approach does more harm than good would need proof, particularly since true message control would be impossible for a social movement (i.e. trying to create a theoretical perfect atheist movement rather than the best one possible). Recently, the gay community’s strategy to refrain from legally challenging DADT was rendered moot by the (Republican) Log Cabin Republicans. I would be shocked if atheists, covering a much broader political spectrum, could take advantage of any strategy that demanded unity on anything. I believe that the best way to promote atheism and critical thinking is to institute magic (illusionist, not witchcraft ;-)) classes for youths, perhaps as a middle school elective or as a mandatory subject for everyone at an even younger age and over many years. Think about it. I ask you: what you think of political protests? What I’m advocating is essentially embedding the principles behind them into conversations at least occasionally. Similarly: why is it so important to avoid creating emotional anguish, particularly in spaces where interacting with the atheist position is more of a conscious choice, such as on the internet or at a debate?
“If someone is already subject to jeer pressure on a subject, I don’t see a problem with using an equivalent counterweight.” I’d venture to say most, if not all, of us are subject to being influenced by the will of our community to some regard, even if it’s less than conscious. It might be possible, but I’ve got no reason to think any one person – with exceptions of perhaps people who are unresponsive to social cues – is completely impervious to jeer pressure. “I don’t believe that my deconversion factors are at all universally applicable. ” Nor I. There are all manner of circumstances that can create different approaches. I do think there is a conflict in logic to have somebody be swayed by ridicule into adopting critical thinking, however. The former is an emotional tool, the latter reasonable. I also think that some tools are more polarising than others. Given it’s impossible to know your entire audience and what they will or won’t respond to, you target as effectively as possible given the scope of your resources. While some approaches won’t be successful, aggressive communication risks exacerbating group polarisation, especially if they respond in like. If somebody had any hope of changing their epistemology before, further polarisation only risks making it less likely. ‘Harm’ might be a strong word to describe such polarisation, but I do think it’s an undesired effect. I agree that complete control of the message at large is nigh impossible. Fortunately, I care less for promoting an absolute, detailed conclusion (i.e. a specific flavour of atheism) than for encouraging an evaluative epistemology and hope the conclusions of my audience will ultimately be more beneficial to themselves and the community than before. “I believe that the best way to promote atheism and critical thinking is to institute magic” I’ve seen the illusionist/debunking process done a lot in schools in my time, believe me. 🙂 I’ve even used it myself on a fair few occasions. In the right context it can be memorable and challenging, so by no means do I think it useless. But this idea seems to be where many skeptics start and stop when it comes to education and critical thinking, unfortunately. I’ll refrain from going into this topic here, if you’ll excuse me, because it’d be one hell of a long post otherwise. On political protests; I personally think it depends. For the most part, I think they’re typically useless. The recent French protests had little impact on stopping the government’s bill on retirement, for instance, in spite of their violence. That said, they are often symptoms of a greater social shift that is in itself quite powerful. I’m fairly ignorant on any research on that particular topic however and put my opinion squarely in light of such naivety. In any case, political protests are often endeavouring to persuade a body of people to change a product; i.e., that might be to not pass a law, ban a service, good etc. For that, I’ll concede that aggression could well be effective. If you wanted a shop keeper to not sell an item, ridiculing or threatening them could certainly stop them. Likewise, as I said earlier, if it was a simple matter of creating a social group of people who all openly confessed their atheism, then aggressive tone would be effective. And that is the goal of some. But for the same reason I oppose religion, pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs, I oppose being an atheist for social reasoning. My interest is in giving people the tools and means to construct their beliefs based on rational thinking. If I ridiculed religion in the hope that they would become atheists, and then suggested it was unscientific to not believe in relativity simply because the idea of relative time sounded ridiculous, I’d not only be a hypocrite, I’d be doing that person a great disservice in helping provide them with a useful epistemology. To answer your final question, my main reason is the polarisation I previously alluded to. It is indeed a conscious decision, but many people read such discussions who are progressing towards an evaluative epistemology, but are still seeing the world using a somewhat multiplist (non-critical, but understanding there are spectrums of belief) approach. Presented with an argument that is aggressive, full of ridicule, and potentially for that reason also hyperbolised or framed in a context that is antagonistic to a social group they sympathise with, it risks dissuading the reader from considering such a conclusion any further. There is reason to believe it is generally seen as less informed, possibly because we have an innate tendency to associate the aggressive defense of a position with lower confidence (which is also reflected in research). So long as the culture of rationalist outreach is dominated by the view that there is no need to defend your choice of communication method, that aggressive tone is productive in creating an evaluative epistemology or that so long as people say they’re atheists/skeptics the method is successful, and that criticism of goals and communication should be avoided, it will be creating problems for itself. Given minimal resources and the extreme challenge of competing with our community’s innate tendency to think socially, challenging what I see as a self-imposed impediment is a worthwhile (if arguably futile) task.
“I do think there is a conflict in logic to have somebody be swayed by ridicule into adopting critical thinking, however. The former is an emotional tool, the latter reasonable.” If you were a dictator, perhaps you would be a benevolent one or even issue an *edict* creating a constitutional congress or establishing a referendum on transitioning to democracy, etc. What you could not do, however liberal your principles, is simply vote yourself out of office on the next occurring (one candidate) election. It’s a dictatorship: you need the edict at least this once. “If somebody had any hope of changing their epistemology before, further polarisation only risks making it less likely.” [citation needed] I think it can sometimes make it more likely, when it highlights a previously unconsidered contradiction within a belief system or between an individual and his or her professed belief system. “I’ve seen the illusionist/debunking process done a lot in schools in my time, believe me.” The power of presentation to assist transfer of information is important and is akin to the type of thing that I am advocating here. Devices might include showing an illusion before describing how it is done to pique curiosity and make an audience more receptive to a message. However, you misunderstood me as I am suggesting something much more radical than that. Not to merely use human emotion to improve the transfer of information but as a partial substitute to it. I don’t think that having people better *understand* that illusion isn’t magic is what would be helpful, and that is primarily what is accomplished by the methods you describe. Rather, I mean to give people the *experience* of deceiving others as a way of altering the deceiver’s opinions. In general I think we should work less on merely having the better arguments and more on convincing. What should not be of ultimate concern are the feelings of theists (or atheists) when their beliefs are challenged. I think the concern generally expressed for them outweighs their importance as tertiary objectives and potential problems if completely ignored. Given that non-literal content of words has such power, I am suggesting mustering it for causes I believe in. I am skeptical of your rejection of using so much of what persuades people, especially in the context of them already being assailed by similar forces from all quarters such that they ignore reasoned discourse, and the priority you instead place on better dominating the field of reason. By all means, since reasoned discourse is the arena in which skeptics have the greatest advantage, steer and confine the argument there as much as possible. But not all human encounters are such debates, in fact, very few are.
“Given that non-literal content of words has such power, I am suggesting mustering it for causes I believe in. ” I agree. It’s one of the few areas in life I have considerable expertise and training. Using my voice. That demands being able to adjust inflection and tone to suit as no two audiences are the same. You have to adjust on the hoof to ensure all parts of the audience maintian interest. You constantly scan and adjust to ensure that each part of the audience maintians interest. It is entirly possible to ensure that people listen to every word you are saying and give them no choice other than to be drawn in, but it is a short term effect. In the same way dealing with an agressive debater in a presentation is simple. Speak in a stage whisper. Its a complete illusion that gives the impression of a quite tone when you are doing the opposite, ensuring the voice resonates fully and cuts through the air as clear as a bell. Angry people find it very disconcerting and as they have no idea what you are doing, they shout, get even louder in an attempt to counter, making matters somewhat worse as the contrast is highly noticable.
@brian “[citation needed]” J of Personality & Social Psych Vol.68:6, pp 1014 might be an appropriate place to start. Failing that, read up on group polarisation. Although, to be blunt, given you’ve already put a higher priority on intuition and your personal experience in this regard, I’m not sure why you sought such evidence. Any such research has been dismissed out of hand already, I thought. “Not to merely use human emotion to improve the transfer of information but as a partial substitute to it.” We seem to be crossing over here. I keep referring to an education on the process, and you maintain practices relevant to promoting the product, or message. From such a position where a priority is placed on a person embracing a belief, independent of a particular epistemology, then aggressive language is useful. We’ve agreed on that. However, my priority is to have people possess the thinking tools necessary to evaluate beliefs, not to embrace then at any cost. We both might hope for the same pragmatic outcome, but a world of atheists who don’t understand how science works and don’t possess the skills to evaluate information and have been ridiculed into their beliefs is about as poor for me as one full of theists who are incapable of evaluative thought. Give me a thinking theist over an atheist sheep any day.
“Although, to be blunt, given you’ve already put a higher priority on intuition and your personal experience in this regard, I’m not sure why you sought such evidence.” My personal experiance extends to being taught by 3 people generaly regarded as the most outstanding drama and vocal experts of the 20th century. My writing style in forum posts and indeed blogs is poor, like many people with a creative background I am dyslexic. My evidence base is not a matter of intuition and personal experiance. Its based on an extremly demanding proffesional training by the worlds leading experts in the field, which only a handfull of people in the world are privilaged enough to recieve. “Any such research has been dismissed out of hand already, I thought.” Whats that has to say about the way you think I am not sure.
“Any such research has been dismissed out of hand already, I thought.” Why would you think that? I tried to say no more than that personal experience is valid as a functional baseline until more evidence is gathered. I should have addressed “Generalised dismissal of any possible study in such disciplines is presumptive and somewhat ignorant,” when you first said it, because I think what happened is that my trying to account for a broad range of worldviews you might hold was interpreted as unyielding skepticism. “However, my priority is to have people possess the thinking tools necessary to evaluate beliefs, not to embrace then at any cost.” Me too. I could have written that sentence. “…a world of atheists who don’t understand how science works and don’t possess the skills to evaluate information and have been ridiculed into their beliefs is about as poor for me as one full of theists who are incapable of evaluative thought.” Imagine a person with literally your exact same goal, who thinks it possible there is a better way to reach it. An analogy: some language classes work with total immersion, while others gradually phase out the students’ native language. I have no idea which works better for most (all?) students but it would be more than unfair to use the second class’ use of different languages as evidence of infidelity to teaching! Let me demonstrate with a thought experiment so unrealistic that we can consider it with less bias and misunderstanding. Imagine it were discovered that all else being equal and when controlling for other factors, a major role in determining whether people are critical thinkers or not is the shape of the roof of the tallest building they saw most often in childhood. Pointy steeples make people less thoughtful, flatter topped buildings make them more so. In such a world I would advocate for buildings to be built with flatter roofs. This is true even though no one ought to think as they do merely because of such a trivial factor. Note two major points, that a) i) religious people already construct tall pointy buildings, ii) many others disregard roof shape when building, and b) there is no roof shape that is content-free and will not direct people’s minds. In such a world, would you hesitate to influence rooftops? In case it wasn’t clear, in that analogy the shape of the roof corresponds to the packaging of the message. Neutral packaging is itself a potentially momentous choice. In prior posts, I spoke mostly to a) but b) is also important. “From such a position where a priority is placed on a person embracing a belief, independent of a particular epistemology, then aggressive language is useful.” If the goal is to get someone to embrace a particular *epistemology*, why exactly would the use of any other epistemology *necessarily* not further the goal? If the goal is to make someone fluent in a foreign language… There is a risk of people, say A and B, talking past each other if, in discussing how best to achieve goal x, person A refuses to believe that B at least intends to achieve x, and cites B’s method of evidence that his goal is really y. Is it really impossible that B really also seeks to achieve goal x, and that his favored method differs because B believes false things, uses faulty reasoning, is insane, or any other reason? “Likewise, as I said earlier, if it was a simple matter of creating a social group of people who all openly confessed their atheism, then aggressive tone would be effective. And that is the goal of some.” Who exactly prioritizes that so much that critical thinking doesn’t even warrant a mention in a fair description of his or her goal?
Ooops sorry I thought the J was for Jeb and you were pulling brian on citation. I also have a bad habit of giving the impression that what I say is anecdotal and based on personal experiance. I get slightly anxious at times speaking to academics as they do have a habit of dismissing things out of hand. Please excuse me. Its one area I do have a great deal of skill and experiance in, well non-written forms of cummunication. With written words I am very slow as I have just demonstrated. To limit inflection range to the extentent suggested by P.Z. et al. is highly inflexable and impractical. But I think that has a strong relationship with the content of the message which is an ultra conservative and rigid perspective on belief, so the choices open are limited from the outset and dictated by the poverty of the content. Their is no room for movement with inflection or significant diffrence in tone unless you rip it up. Tone is a bit of red herring I think. The script is the central element and problem.
“Imagine a person with literally your exact same goal, who thinks it possible there is a better way to reach it.” Well, it’s a good thing we’re still furthering this topic, then. 🙂 I’m all for better ways of approaching it. This isn’t of mere incidental interest to me – I moved from a career in medical science into education and then into science communication (and currently medical anthropology) to better learn the spectrum of how people learn. And no, there are no absolutes. But some ways are more useful than others within given contexts. On your analogy – it’s true that there is no such thing as frameless communication. But that doesn’t equate all framing with equally potent outcomes. Some are far more reliable when it comes to creating a particular result. Others are variable between individuals. It is also possible to use such framing to influence people into constructivist thinking, while use other framing to influence people into embracing beliefs emotionally. Different frames have a greater chance of influencing different forms of thinking. I cannot say conclusively that it is ubiquitous, but I’m quite confident I’d do better at framing a request for a favour in a polite manner than an abusive one the vast majority of the time. “If the goal is to get someone to embrace a particular *epistemology*, why exactly would the use of any other epistemology *necessarily* not further the goal?” I’m not sure I understand the question. I can say quite definitively that if a person is using a more social epistemology to evaluate evidence, or is absolutist, it can’t be described as scientifically evaluative. And it certainly won’t further the goal of people being more critical in their thinking. I don’t doubt that we share the same goal, however I am finding your explanations a little confusing, so we might be talking past one another. “Who exactly prioritizes that so much that critical thinking doesn’t even warrant a mention in a fair description of his or her goal?” I suspect there are a lot of people who give a nod to critical thinking without really understanding what it implies, and think it is merely a synonymous statement for ‘shares my beliefs’. I don’t just mean rationalists there, either, but all manner of people who know critical thinking is a good thing without knowing how it works. Believe it or not I have also encountered a couple of people who admit they care not about how a person arrives at a conclusion, so long as they become an atheist/non-believer etc. I tend to walk away from those discussions, as we have zero common ground.
“Believe it or not I have also encountered a couple of people who admit they care not about how a person arrives at a conclusion, so long as they become an atheist/non-believer etc. I tend to walk away from those discussions, as we have zero common ground.” Perhaps some are saying the bit I’m unable to communicate well. As you are generally advocating the more “tolerant” non-angry sounding side’s case, how intrinsic to it do you think the bit you just said is? I ask because expressing unconcern over others’ non-harmful beliefs is often a page in that side’s playbook. “And it certainly won’t further the goal of people being more critical in their thinking.” Why is it *certain* that asking someone to follow a bad epistemology will not lead them to a better one? For example, if someone’s epistemology were to simply believe absolutely everything an adult told them, and an adult told them that unknown adults should not be believed, then their old epistemology is destroyed. If someone became a critical thinker because his old epistemology was to ape cool people as much as possible and he happened to pick Christopher Hitchens, why does it matter how it happened? He no longer thinks or acts as he previously did. He’s now fortunately a critic of mindlessly following authority, though if he had picked someone else he wouldn’t be. Why is total immersion in reason the only way to make someone reasonable? I don’t presently think there is a difference in kind between “framing” and “appealing to or repulsing the non-logical ways people think/believe/act”. “I cannot say conclusively that it is ubiquitous, but I’m quite confident I’d do better at framing a request for a favour in a polite manner than an abusive one the vast majority of the time.” I learned many things in my negotiation seminar taught by a very renowned expert, and the best that I can say is that not only is that generally true, but learning to identify the minority of situations in which an abusive manner best achieves your goals (and having the confidence to do so) is a skill that can be taught and learned! “…but all manner of people who know critical thinking is a good thing without knowing how it works.” I probably would fail for many relevant definitions of “how it works”.
“…if someone’s epistemology were to simply believe absolutely everything an adult told them, and an adult told them that unknown adults should not be believed, then their old epistemology is destroyed.” This is a rather simplistic view of how epistemology changes. It’s typically more of a gradualism than an epiphany. What’s more, there’s somewhat a consensus that evaluative epistemology doesn’t emerge from a uni-directional instruction. I really don’t want to present this as an argument from authority, but it’s something that I’ve taken a while to get a solid grounding in, so you’ll have to excuse me if I can’t present a full explanation in a blog response. A good place to start with understanding how epistemology develops is a woman named Deanna Kuhn. I’d recommend reading her ‘Skills in argument’ book for a place to start. “Why is total immersion in reason the only way to make someone reasonable?” I never suggested it was the only way, or even necessary. I did suggest a constructivist environment, permitting discovery of self-evident concepts, is more conducive, especially in a controllable environment like a classroom. External to that, social role modeling of evaluative approaches is most certainly useful. However, there is a thin line between role modeling critical thinking – which permits an open expression of conflicting and even incorrect conclusions – and role modeling a conclusion, which resists contrary conclusions. For example, PZ’s blog is highly caustic for anybody who dares to present an alternative view, which is essential for developing an evaluative epistemology. It’s not about thinking critically as much as following the herd. “…but learning to identify the minority of situations in which an abusive manner best achieves your goals (and having the confidence to do so) is a skill that can be taught and learned!” I agree. As I said several times, I’ve got no issue with the fact that there are goals where aggression is useful, especially if that goal is to disregard critical thinking in favour of encouraging a specific belief. I’ve found no evidence other than intuition and anecdotes that says it is ever conducive to developing an evaluative epistemology, however, let alone qualities describing such specific situations. “I probably would fail for many relevant definitions of “how it works”.” I wouldn’t worry too much; it’s a field even the experts admit the boundaries get fuzzy. That’s not to say there’s no common ground, however determining precisely which cognitive traits are most useful in evaluative thinking etc. makes for an interesting discussion in pedagogy. Outside of it, it’s probably kind of boring. 😛 Unfortunately, the beliefs of skeptics and atheists aren’t generally well supported by social thinking in most environments. Collectivist communities form around social thinking in low socioeconomic regions, for instance. Hell, it’s how we evolved as humans. We’ve got an uphill battle, and if we try to take short cuts, we’re sacrificing the best chance of success for an illusion of it. Skeptics should be focusing more on collecting good information about how people learn, using science, instead of presuming it’s too hard and going with ‘intuition’ instead.
“This is a rather simplistic view of how epistemology changes.” It was a thought experiment like the building tops. It’s not how I think people work more than I think they are influenced by building shapes (perhaps a bit more). It attempts to show that your broad conclusion that “I can say quite definitively that if a person is using a more social epistemology to evaluate evidence…it certainly won’t further the goal of people being more critical in their thinking,” is not true for all possible epistemologies and circumstances. The next step would be to discuss how common such circumstances are in the world, but you resist admitting even their possibility. “I do think there is a conflict in logic to have somebody be swayed by ridicule into adopting critical thinking, however. The former is an emotional tool, the latter reasonable…I never suggested (total immersion in reason) was the only way, or even necessary. ” You lost me in the space between those two statements. Ought one *ever* use arational tools to promote reason, or not? For the purpose of this question I will concede a real difference between “framing” and “using arational tools”, since you admitted that there can be no content without framing. I still don’t see a difference between the two, however. “I’ve found no evidence other than intuition and anecdotes that says it is ever conducive to developing an evaluative epistemology…” While real studies would have to be done to sort out the issue of whether an activity does more harm than good or not, why aren’t the reams of anecdotal evidence at least excellent reason to tentatively believe that *some* good is done thereby, irrespective of the harm done? I’d like to know, if you didn’t have scientific evidence that modeling critical thought promotes it, how strongly would you believe it from your more flawed sources of information alone? “I agree. As I said several times, I’ve got no issue with the fact that there are goals where aggression is useful…” This statement is incomplete because every unit of which we are speaking has several components: a goal, an approach, and a time/place. Your statement elides time/place since your conclusion is that aggression is inappropriate for promoting critical thought at all times and places. I have issue with your conclusion that for no time/place is it conceivable that aggression is useful for advancing the goal of promoting critical thinking in people. Some of your statements are expressed with certainty the source for which I don’t understand, others seem to more modestly criticize those who believe such cases are common given the quality of evidence that such cases exist in practice or that they are common. Sorry for focusing so much on the sentence structure but you presented your argument in a form that couldn’t even contain my position as it ignored the distinction I am trying to make from your similar position. “Unfortunately, the beliefs of skeptics and atheists aren’t generally well supported by social thinking in most environments.” I have no idea what this means. Nor any of the following sentences.
“It was a thought experiment like the building tops. It’s not how I think people work more than I think they are influenced by building shapes (perhaps a bit more).” Unfortunately, I’m not connecting your thought experiments with reality. I’m beginning to wonder if we’re using ‘epistemology’ in the same way, as I’m struggling to relate my understanding of it with what you’re proposing, especially when you say my conclusion ‘is not true for all possible epistemologies and circumstances’. Given the definitive features of evaluative versus absolutist epistemology, for example I can make absolute statements based on logic given certain aspects are mutually exclusive. Encouraging social values in an absolutist context simply will not be conducive to developing an evaluative approach. The evidence supports this, no less. Now, if I read you correctly, your thought experiments seem to say there just might be some unidentified variable which could contradict this claim. Obviously I can’t say that’s impossible, but I’d need more than the imagined possibility to contradict research and the logic behind it. I’d need evidence that this explains what we see better than current theories of behind social epistemology. “Ought one *ever* use arational tools to promote reason, or not?” Without trying to be pedantic, it depends on how you mean ‘use’. As we agree, all communication has a frame, and framing is often emotive. Right now, we’re both (I presume) communicating in a congenial tone, framing this discussion in a frank but polite manner. I’m doing so on the presumption that it offers the least amount of emotional interference. I’m also not trying to flatter you, insult you, complain or appeal to popularity etc. So, while I am using a framing device to communicate information, I’m doing so in an effort to present the most rational explanation possible with minimal emotional connotation. So, should we always use similar framing in developing another’s evaluative epistemology? I believe so. For children especially, they develop beyond absolutist epistemology when they feel comfortable to seek information and ask questions. The comfort factor might be considered an emotive frame, but it is more conducive to a constructivist approach than one where they are resistant of being critical of other ideas. The goal is still to encourage rational values over emotional ones. I hope that clarifies what I mean a little better. “While real studies would have to be done to sort out the issue of whether an activity does more harm than good or not, why aren’t the reams of anecdotal evidence at least excellent reason to tentatively believe that *some* good is done thereby, irrespective of the harm done?” Because given the ‘reams’ of anecdotes, it’s impossible to distinguish key variables. There are also ‘reams’ of anecdotes that psychic powers exist, however we know that psychology better explains their observations than the existence of psychic powers. Likewise, we understand that two people can claim to hold the same belief while arriving at it using two different epistemologies. I venture there is a percentage of atheists and skeptics who reject notions of the supernatural primarily out of emotive reasons, and are quite poor at evaluative thinking. In some ways, most of us unconsciously reserve some beliefs from critical evaluation. Some are worse than others, however, and if we mistaken the spreading of the conclusion for a promotion of an epistemology, we’re simply fooling ourselves. “Your statement elides time/place since your conclusion is that aggression is inappropriate for promoting critical thought at all times and places.” I’m sorry if it necessarily excludes your possibility of some time/place/context where aggressive language just might be conducive to encouraging an evaluative epistemology. Logically, I don’t see how it would work. The research isn’t in its favour. All you have is an analogy, really, and one I struggle to relate to what I know about pedagogy. I am trying to see it, and am sympathetic to the fact that we come with different amounts of experience in the field. All I can say is, yes, it might be possible that there are variables which could contradict what I’m saying. But the anecdotes, analogies and intuitive notions don’t add up to evidence for those variables, I’m afraid. Which means you need something more substantial before I’d be prepared to modify my understanding of epistemological development to include qualified situations where aggressive language could be useful in developing evaluative thinking tools.
Purely as an aside, when I first saw the title of the thread I wondered if it was referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were, after all, the projects of our beloved former Prime Minister Blair (known to one and all by the affectionate nickname of “Tone”)
Tribalscientist is doing something I see a lot of in these discussions, and it’s very dickish. It’s the over-simplistic reduction of a position to the part that he just doesn’t like. The argument is ridiculous, and the rough outline is like this: divide everyone into two groups, say, those who always use ridicule and those who never use ridicule. Then pretend the debate can be easily resolved by determining the effectiveness of ridicule, after which everyone who is rational should be expected to line up in the winning category, and eventually we’ll resolve everything down to the single optimal strategy. It’s not going to work. You’ll never find anyone who uses a single method, you’ll never find a method that works best at all times for all people, and pompously lecturing everyone on the fine points of exactly how they must behave at all times just gets you a reputation as a pretentious…dick. And also as someone I can simply ignore, no matter whether you do make an occasional valid point.
That won’t fly, Paul. I read TS’s 3 November comment after you said this and he/she immediately starts out saying the opposite of what you accuse. And this is a common technique you seem to use: to try to make the opposing team assert things they explicitly reject in order to call them “dickish”, and to be perfectly frank it’s as good an illustration of what people object to in your discourse as one could wish for. Strawmanning, black and white fallacy, overgeneralisation… I could use your comments as a field of fallacies for my reasoning skills class. You often assert that we tone moderates are being dickish. When examined it seems this is because we dare to criticise your tone. When two people (one of whom is taking your side, by the way, and so far as I can see, nobody here is being dickish to apart from a critical, but polite, discussion) have a conversation about this, here comes PZ accusing us of impoliteness because we aren’t having a fight. This is a discussion of epistemology, not just rights. I am very pleased that tribalscientist and brian are having this discussion here. It’s about time it was had.
Not really a response to the current debate (except tangentially), but sometimes I imagine myself doing a little experiment with PZ, for the sake of a cheap laugh: Hand him a stopwatch and a book, and see how many seconds it takes for him to find something ridiculous in it. (I have a particular book in mind, and if you read it you’d know why.)
Fortunately, nobody rejects the role of finding and pointing out ridiculous beliefs. But the way you do it affects the audience (something that Saul Alinsky knew well). And sometimes the effective tone is to ridicule ridiculous things. Just not always. There is an old joke about G. B. Shaw. Apparently he was debating free love with a society matron, who opposed it. “Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?” he asked her. After consideration, she said she might. “What about for one pound?” he asked. “Sir!” she replied, “What do you think I am?” “We have established that,” said Shaw. “Now we are haggling over the price.” Basically both sides of this argument have established the fact that tone matters. What we are disagreeing with is the automatic presumption that one should treat those with whom we disagree aggressively. Everyone accepts this should not be the automatic presumption, even PZ (although I am unsure about some of his minions), but words speak louder than, ummm, principles. And what interests me most of all is the sociology of this. The epistemology is well enough established (people do not tend to use reason to arrive at beliefs; the prescriptive aspect is that they should); but the sociology is clear as a bell. Attack “debates” serve one, and only one, purpose: to rally the like-minded. They certainly do not change the wider community’s beliefs. To do that involves the Alinskyan style engagement. I suspect what the tone warriors are worried about is that engagement might take off the edge. I do not worry about that, myself, because I do not think that social equilibria are arrived at by the force of belief or the commitment of revolutionaries. I think that engagement does tend to lead to moderation of arguments, though, and this is a good thing. On both sides.
“Tribalscientist is doing something I see a lot of in these discussions, and it’s very dickish. It’s the over-simplistic reduction of a position to the part that he just doesn’t like. This would be a good place, in which case, to articulate precisely how it is an oversimplification. Outlining you goals, where my argument falls down, why your evidence is stronger than what I’ve presented etc. Instead, you’ve reiterated two points – my argument is ridiculous, followed by a strawman. If we ignore the fact that the core of what you’ve said is clearly a misrepesentation, your entire argument starts and ends with how you feel about it. “divide everyone into two groups, say, those who always use ridicule and those who never use ridicule. Then pretend the debate can be easily resolved by determining the effectiveness of ridicule, after which everyone who is rational should be expected to line up in the winning category, and eventually we’ll resolve everything down to the single optimal strategy.” Given my argument is plain here, and on the blog that’s been linked to, it’s obvious that this isn’t what I’ve said at all. In fact, it’s very almost the opposite of what I’ve said. That means one of two things; your statement is a plain lie, or you simply haven’t read it. Nobody can fault you for the latter, but the fact you present my argument as if you have is rather dishonest. “You’ll never find anyone who uses a single method, you’ll never find a method that works best at all times for all people, and pompously lecturing everyone on the fine points of exactly how they must behave at all times just gets you a reputation as a pretentious…dick.” Some undoubtedly feel that if they’re being criticised, the person criticising them simply must be ‘pompous’ and ‘a dick’. You seem to be the only person here using that definition of the term, where criticism is dickish behaviour, and coming from the famous PZ Myers it is a little rich. But I can live with it, especially given a lot the discussion that has resulted – case in point above – is rather productive when there isn’t defensiveness and strawmen arguments. “And also as someone I can simply ignore, no matter whether you do make an occasional valid point.” So if you can ignore me, why pop up to offer a strawman argument, describe it as ridiculous, and let me know I can be ignored? And if I make an ‘occasional’ valid point, what is the point on suggesting it might exist but, hey, you’re too annoyed by your strawman interpretation of the rest of it to point out the invalid points? I do wonder why you bothered at all.
Uh-oh! First Tone, now Dick, where’s Harry? Oh, that’s right, it’s me, H for Harry. And also as someone I can simply ignore, no matter whether you do make an occasional valid point. That’s an odd way to ignore someone. And the tone of your comment does seem to bear out his assessment of the atmosphere on your blog as being highly caustic for anybody who dares to present an alternative view
I do think there’s an issue of pragmatism vs. radicalism at stake here. Meyers and others have argued that it’s religion qua religion at the core of many political conflicts. And while that might be the case when talking about science education, it’s less convincing when you see Richard Dawkins admitting to personal squeamishness in his advocacy of an apology for Turing(*). It’s less convincing when you see Christopher Hitchins make the argument that waterboarding is torture and Americans shouldn’t have done it because they got caught. With the lack of a unified political philosophy that unites the religious or the non-religious, many political actions by necessity have to take religion off the table and focus on goals and methods. If the goal is to get a municipal gay rights ordinance, and the method is to get letters of support, you keep your personal disagreements with religious prohibitions of sexuality and attempts to reconcile them elsewhere. (*) Dawkins did the right thing here, but it’s not a position that lends itself to strong advocacy.
No, John, you may be accustomed to thinking of waffling as being generous, but I live in Minnesota, the land where “nice” is a form of passive-aggressive torture. I’ll happily use tribalscientists own definition of “dickish”: On my definition of ‘dickish’ (and one I think most people seem to share): it is one that is quite obviously based on intention of the communicator, and serves specifically or incidentally to create a degree of mental suffering or at least the impression of creating suffering in members of an audience. As such it is easily defined as any aggressive communication that by choice or for lack of fair consideration creates some form of emotional anguish. It’s hopelessly vague. Any communication that has the intent of causing the target to change their minds can be interpreted as “aggressive” and creating “anguish”. Look at those innocuous bus signs that stirred up so much resentment because they merely said “there is probably no god”. Everything but acquiescence is dickish. Everyone here recognizes that we’re in a struggle to win people over to the side of reason, and no matter what you may claim about your tactics, we are all banging hard on ideas, and no one on either side is planning to give up. Somehow, though, the ‘tone moderates’ consistently set themselves up as holier than everyone else, while they’re doing the same thing everyone else is doing: aggressively promoting their own views in public discussions. I could also point to your own comment as an exercise in self-contradiction: you’re attempting to chastise me by accusing me of errors and falsehoods, as is tribalscientist. I guess you’re going to have a hard time convincing me of anything now, right? You both readily drop the whole attitude of evaluating ideas without trying to aggravate stress and conflict in the target of your disagreement, and follow the tactics I often use, of openly pursuing what I see as error. Perhaps you’re doing it to persuade third parties? But wait…tribalscientist questions that, too. This is not about you criticizing my tone — I’ve gotten plenty of that — but the raw hypocrisy of this game. Face it, the tone moderates are following the same playbook as the confrontationists, you’re just being more longwinded, pedantic, and tedious about it, trying to set up a facade of plausible denial with a flurry of manners.
“It’s hopelessly vague. Any communication that has the intent of causing the target to change their minds can be interpreted as “aggressive” and creating “anguish”.” I’m finding it hard to believe that somebody who presents himself as such a champion of science, reason and knowing the facts could so blatantly miss key words and misrepresent the argument so obviously. The key word is ‘intention’. Nobody can control how a message is received with absolute fidelity, sure, but that doesn’t mean all frames have an equal chance at conveying the same meaning. I could call you a slut, or I could point out you’ve had comparatively more sexual partners. Both might cause anguish of some sort, but if you think they’ve got an equal chance of conveying the same emotional connotation, then I think I might see your problem. This debate is clearly about the intentions of the communicator. If you choose words with the intention of creating emotional anguish, then we can call it dickish behaviour. If you choose words that attempt to reduce this, being apologetic for unintended emotional anguish but not for the anguish the act of critical evaluation of a belief itself might cause, then there’s a better chance of achieving certain a goal of encouraging people to think critically themselves. Of course, this mightn’t be your desired outcome at all. If you’re simply out to create a community of like-minded atheists who believe in the same thing, I can’t fault your method, even if I don’t share your goal. “You both readily drop the whole attitude of evaluating ideas without trying to aggravate stress and conflict in the target of your disagreement, and follow the tactics I often use, of openly pursuing what I see as error.” I can’t speak for John, but I can honestly state I’ve not intentionally proposed my criticism with the intent of angering or upsetting you. I had presumed based on what little I know of you that simply being criticised wouldn’t be considered an emotional attack…but if that’s how you interpret it, I’ve got no issue with not directing any communication towards you at all in the future. I’m confident third parties aren’t interpreting my criticisms as laden with aggression, vitriol or emotional attacks, but if you can given evidence to the contrary where somebody is clearly upset by my tone, please do. “Ridiculing the ridiculous may seem like a waste of time to pedants, but still, you might be amazed at how often people express surprise that their cherished superstitions might actually be criticized, and how often people say that they’re relieved that someone finally said what they’ve been thinking…and that’s incredibly useful for getting the conversation started, and jump-starting critical thought on the other side.” You still seem to think this is simply about criticism of any sort equaling ridicule, in spite of what has been said repeatedly. So you can reject our criticism, but fortunately the evidence above clearly still stands in favour of it. I’m quite confident that if we both sat down with a youth minister and discussed their beliefs – one of us in a reasonable, congenial tone, and the other openly mocking and aggressively attacking – one would have a greater chance at inspiring a critical evaluation of their belief than the other. As Brian pointed out above, there might be rare occasions where an individual does respond better to verbal abuse, name calling, arrogant posturing and insults. And if you can identify this in a select audience, then kudos to you for employing such tactics. But outside of such a context, I fail to see the point of arguing in favour of it. Of course, rather than point out why this is wrong, I’m sure you can dismiss it as ridiculous and reductionist and assert it’s wrong and be satisfied that you’ve presented an argument. And given this is how you model what passes for ‘critical thinking’, I have chosen to criticise it.
You mean you don’t intend to change anyone’s mind, and if you are, you are unaware of the possibility that this might (actually, in most cases, certainly will) cause stress and anguish? And again, you persist in caricaturing my position. I did sit down on several occasions with various ministers. Guess what? I didn’t call them pissant poopyheads. You seem incapable of recognizing that other people might be entirely capable of tailoring their approach to the circumstances.
PZ Myers: You mean you don’t intend to change anyone’s mind, and if you are, you are unaware of the possibility that this might (actually, in most cases, certainly will) cause stress and anguish? There’s a big difference between (1) intending to cause someone anguish or other harm and (2) intending to do something else with the possible side effect of anguish or other harm. That’s especially true if one takes steps to minimize the harm. To expand on tribalscientist’s example, it’s pretty easy to say that “Slut, you probably gonna get AIDS from all that bareback nasty you do” is probably worded with the intent to be mean, while “You’ve been having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and you really ought to get tested for HIV” is not.
I’ll also add that I reject both your criticisms. I have read the “ridiculous essay” in question, and it does take an absurdly reductionist view, trying to dissect the complexities of human interactions into ridicule and not-ridicule, and ultimately plunking down on the side of rejecting ridicule. It’s an exercise in yammering about the obvious and coming to an inappropriate conclusion. Yes, even us “tone warriors” know that there are contexts in which ridicule doesn’t work — you won’t catch me charging into a church service and yelling “Your god is a stinkyhead”, but you will find me having conversations with the youth minister at the coffee shop. Ridiculing the ridiculous may seem like a waste of time to pedants, but still, you might be amazed at how often people express surprise that their cherished superstitions might actually be criticized, and how often people say that they’re relieved that someone finally said what they’ve been thinking…and that’s incredibly useful for getting the conversation started, and jump-starting critical thought on the other side.
“You mean you don’t intend to change anyone’s mind, and if you are, you are unaware of the possibility that this might (actually, in most cases, certainly will) cause stress and anguish?” No PZ. Read what I wrote – “Both might cause anguish of some sort, but if you think they’ve got an equal chance of conveying the same emotional connotation, then I think I might see your problem.” “And again, you persist in caricaturing my position. I did sit down on several occasions with various ministers. Guess what? I didn’t call them pissant poopyheads.” I’m quite sure you didn’t, and never claimed that was the case. In fact, I was drawing attention to the fact that a mere act of criticism is not the same as communicating it with ridicule. Above, you state you won’t use name-calling in a service, BUT you will sit and chat with a youth minister. You then go on (seemingly in a connected statement) to say ridiculing what seems ridiculous to you might seem pedantic to others, but works. Given we’re discussing a tone of communication here which is intended to create anxiety, and not the act of criticism itself, I can only assume you’re defending the fact that you might sit with a youth minister and use aggressive language – including mockery and ridicule – to convince them they’re wrong. If that’s not what you’re saying, I’m at a complete loss as to what your point is at all.
You’re at a loss because once again you’re arguing against a black&white caricature, and seem to be incapable of escaping it. And doing it at pedantic length, I might add.
Ah, so in spite of the fact the strawman has been burned to the ground, you still keep shaking it as if it’s got a few more breaths in it. No matter, given how obviously wrong it is and how I’ve clearly articulated my views on goals where ridicule might be useful, we can move past it. Just to be clear; pointing out that there is a difference between the tone of communication and the act of criticism itself is ‘pedantic’? I might accept you truly believe that, if not for the fact that your response above indicates you have never sat down with a youth worker and called them names. Oddly, this was in support of why you believe ridicule can occasionally work and why my view is a ‘black and white caricature’. In short, I suspect you really don’t know what you’re saying, but feel a need to keep saying it anyway. Maybe ignoring me would have been a better option rather than feigning as if you understand the argument being put forward. In any case, let’s sum up – you think my argument is wrong because you feel it is ridiculous, reductionist and pedantic. In spite of having ample opportunity to show precisely where it falls down and provide more than assertions, you’ve stuck with sentiments and a few strawmen for good measure. We all know how you feel, PZ. And if that’s all there is to your argument, then rest assured we know it well.
Time, gentlemen. Last drinks. I will take blogger’s prerogative and get the last word in (here, at any rate: I don’t have a readership of millions of minions. Is there an Indian term for millions of minions? A Lakh of minions?). PZ has tried, repeatedly, to argue that 1. Tone doesn’t matter 2. To say that tone matters is to cave into the religious 3. He really does attend to tone, because it matters a bit 4. You can’t be critical without offending someone, so tone doesn’t matter 5. His critics make him out to say that tone doesn’t matter, when he clearly says that it does 6. Anyway, where has he said tone doesn’t matter? I have tried to argue that 1. Tone matters 2. Tone is not all that matters 3. Sometimes other things take precedence over tone tribalscientist has argued for these as well. In response, PZ has argued that 1. We are strawmanning him 2. We are being pedantic At which point, all debate is done. Have fun storming the castle, boys and girls…
Hmm, academic rules of debate tend to revere respectful tone. Does this mean that academic rules of debate intrinsically favor religious intolerance or whatever else PZ fights against? Also, “You can’t be critical without offending someone, so tone doesn’t matter” sounds illogically necessary unless there is only one degree of offense. Perhaps PZ would refuse to adhere to academic judgment of debate with most people who disagree with him. Or am I misunderstanding something in this thread?
This is your final say? You put a bunch of words in my mouth that don’t reflect what I’ve been saying, imply that you haven’t been strawmanning anyone, and hide behind the defense that I’d swarm you with “minions” (who aren’t at all apparent here, but a phantom horde will do as an excuse, I guess)? All right, I’m gone, I’ll try to avoid oppressing you with my minionry.
A complaint about strawmanning followed in the same sentence by a peculiar assertion that Wilkins thinks Myers is threatening a minion-swarming party? This is just kooky.
It’s clear PZ doesn’t take the time to actually read anything, but scans a word or two and makes the rest up in his head. I think he saw the words ‘minions’ and ‘storming’ and the rest was pure imagination. It makes me suspect he doesn’t intentionally create strawman arguments, but simply couldn’t be bothered really understanding the argument he’s trying to attack. Great example of critical thinking. 😉